On Thursday, 26 of June 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:17:26 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 25 of June 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > If this could be sneaked into Ingo's tree for some automated testing, > > > > that would be good. > > > > > > sure - i have applied it to tip/out-of-tree. I'm equally nervous about > > > this change - it affects every suspend+resume cycle that people do on > > > those boxes which are working just fine currently. > > > > > > btw., it would get a lot more coverage on my test-systems if this commit > > > in tip/out-of-tree: > > > > > > | commit 01259383c345d13b70efcc549439927ae64dc66d > > > | Author: David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > | Date: Fri May 16 10:12:36 2008 +0200 > > > | > > > | sleepy linux self-test > > > > > > was upstream and if it was enabled more prominently, instead of hidden > > > behind the rather obscure condition of: > > > > > > config PM_TEST_SUSPEND > > > bool "Test suspend/resume and wakealarm during bootup" > > > depends on SUSPEND && PM_DEBUG && RTC_LIB=y > > > > > > and even then it needs certain other config options related to RTC_LIB > > > to actually work during bootup. > > > > > > As a result of all this obstruction, the automated testing i do, which > > > builds and boots more than 1 random kernel per minute, will only run > > > this self-test once every hour or so. > > > > > > I dont mind if this option breaks boxes (that its purpose: it does the > > > same thing that a real suspend+resume does and suspend+resume frequently > > > breaks boxes), but right now it's all obscured so heavily which makes > > > automated testing a lot harder than it should be. > > > > > > it would be wonderful if this excellent suspend+resume self-test was > > > upstream and was more prominent! :-) > > > > I thought it was in linux-next, wasn't it? > > > > Len seems to think that Rafael seems to think that Ingo seems to think > that this patch broke one of his boxes. > > Is it so? Yes, it is. The box is apparently broken, but we've been unable to reproduce the breakage on other very similar boxes, so far. Investigation continues. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
